Zero FIR — BNSS Section 173(1) (New Provision)

Section mapping CrPC ↔ BNSS new provision fir procedure Zero FIRSection 173 BNSSSection 154 CrPCFIR registration
Old provision
Section 154 CrPC
Information in cognizable cases — no equivalent to the words "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed"
New provision
Section 173(1) BNSS
Information in cognizable cases

Section 173(1) BNSS, the successor of Section 154(1) CrPC, adds the words "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" — the statutory basis of what is commonly called a Zero FIR, a term the Sanhita itself does not use — and allows information to be given orally or by electronic communication, signed within three days. The Sanhita sets out no transfer procedure and no fifteen-day transfer period for such information. Section 173(3) adds a discretionary preliminary enquiry, within fourteen days and with prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, for offences punishable for three years or more but less than seven years; Section 173(4) extends the refusal remedy to an application to the Magistrate.

Veritect
Veritect Legal Intelligence
Legal Intelligence Agent
15 min read

In India, Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) lets information of a cognizable offence be given to any police station "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" — the basis of what is called a Zero FIR. Section 154 CrPC had no such words. The Sanhita prescribes no transfer procedure and no fifteen-day transfer period.

At a glance

Item Detail
Old section Section 154 CrPC — Information in cognizable cases (no equivalent to the "irrespective of the area" words)
New section Section 173 BNSS — Information in cognizable cases; sub-section (1)
What it does Allows information of a cognizable offence to be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, irrespective of where the offence was committed, and requires it to be recorded
Punishment Not applicable — procedural provision. Failure to record information about listed offences is punishable under BNS s.199(c): rigorous imprisonment of not less than six months, up to two years, and fine
Cognizable / bailable / triable by BNS s.199: cognizable, bailable, Magistrate of the first class (BNSS First Schedule)
Other new rules Electronic information signed within three days (s.173(1)(ii)); copy free to informant or victim (s.173(2)); discretionary preliminary enquiry within fourteen days (s.173(3)); application to the Magistrate after the SP (s.173(4))
Change type New words in an existing provision (new-provision)

What changed

  • "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" — New. These words sit in s.173(1). Section 154(1) CrPC said nothing about the place of the offence.
  • Mode of giving information — Expanded. Section 154(1) began "if given orally"; s.173(1) says information "may be given orally or by electronic communication".
  • Electronic information — New. Under s.173(1)(ii) it "shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it".
  • Form of the book — Minor edit. "as the State Government may prescribe" became "as the State Government may by rules prescribe".
  • First proviso (woman officer to record) — Modified. The offence list changed from IPC ss.326A, 326B, 354, 354A–354D, 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E and 509 to BNS ss.64–71, 74–79 and 124.
  • Second proviso, clause (a) — Expanded. The CrPC list for recording at the residence of a disabled person did not include ss.326A and 326B. The BNSS list repeats the first-proviso list, including BNS s.124 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.).
  • Second proviso, clauses (b) and (c) — Minor edit. "video graphed" became "videographed"; "a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164" became "a Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (6) of section 183".
  • s.173(2) — Expanded. The free copy goes "to the informant or the victim"; s.154(2) said "to the informant".
  • s.173(3) — New. A discretionary preliminary enquiry for cognizable offences "made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years".
  • s.173(4) — Expanded. This was s.154(3). "this Code" became "this Sanhita", and the words "failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate" were added.
  • Transfer — Absent in both. Neither s.154 CrPC nor s.173 BNSS contains a transfer procedure or period. The word "zero" does not appear in the Gazette text. "Fifteen days" appears only in ss.187, 346, 480 and 483, none of which concerns an FIR.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Section 154(1) CrPC — extract (original-PDF text):

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it …

Section 173 BNSS — extracts (Gazette text):

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given— (i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it; (ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may by rules prescribe in this behalf:

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,— (i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

(4) … failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate.

How it works — the steps

  1. Go to any police station (s.173(1)). Information of a cognizable offence may be given to an officer in charge of a police station irrespective of where the offence was committed.
  2. Oral or electronic (s.173(1)(i)–(ii)). Oral information is reduced to writing, read over and signed. Electronic information is taken on record once the informant signs it within three days; s.2(1)(i) defines "electronic communication" to include transmission by telephone, mobile phone, computer or other electronic device.
  3. Woman officer for listed offences (provisos). Information from a woman against whom an offence under BNS ss.64–71, 74–79 or 124 is alleged is recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer; for a disabled informant, at her residence or chosen place, with an interpreter or special educator, and videographed.
  4. Free copy (s.173(2)). Given forthwith to the informant or the victim.
  5. Optional preliminary enquiry (s.173(3)). For offences punishable for three years or more but less than seven, with prior DSP-rank permission, within fourteen days.
  6. Refusal remedy (s.173(4); s.175(3)). Substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police; failing that, an application to the Magistrate, who acts on "the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173" (s.175(3)).
  7. Jurisdiction to investigate (s.175(2)). No proceeding of a police officer "shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate" — the same words as s.156(2) CrPC.

Worked example (a reading of the text). A resident of one district is defrauded by a caller elsewhere. She may give the information electronically to her local station and sign it within three days (s.173(1)(ii)). If the station declines to record it, her route is the SP by post (s.173(4)), then the Magistrate on an affidavit-supported application (s.175(3)).

What this means in practice

For complainants and victims. On a reading of s.173(1), you need not first find the police station with territorial jurisdiction. Ask for the free copy (s.173(2)); if you gave the information electronically, sign it within three days. If recording is refused, write to the SP by post and keep proof of dispatch. The later application to the Magistrate under s.175(3) needs an affidavit sworn in accordance with s.333 BNSS (XXX v. State of Kerala, para 59).

For police officers. The text gives no discretion to decline recording on the ground that the offence occurred elsewhere. For the offences listed in BNS s.199(c), failure to record information given under s.173(1) is itself a cognizable, bailable offence carrying rigorous imprisonment of six months to two years and fine. Any s.173(3) preliminary enquiry needs prior permission from an officer not below DSP rank and must be completed within fourteen days. Imran Pratapgadhi (para 24) says that if no prima facie case is found, the informant should be told immediately so the s.173(4) remedy can be used.

For defence counsel. Section 173(3) is discretionary ("may") and applies only within the three-to-seven-year band, but Imran Pratapgadhi (para 29) treats a preliminary enquiry as "always appropriate" where the allegation rests on spoken or written words.

On transfer. Section 173 does not say what happens next to information recorded at a station without territorial jurisdiction. Under the CrPC, Satvinder Kaur allowed the officer to investigate and, if the offence proved to be outside his jurisdiction, forward the case; on a reading, that carries forward because s.175(2) repeats s.156(2). A fixed transfer period, if any, would be an executive rule; none was verified for this page.

Judgments that still matter

Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), [1999] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 348 (1999 INSC 455), 5 October 1999 (K.T. Thomas and M.B. Shah JJ.). The High Court had quashed an FIR registered in Delhi for events alleged at Patiala, for want of territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set that aside. It held that if, after investigation, the officer concludes the crime was not committed within his station's jurisdiction, the FIR "can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction", but "this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it". It relied on s.156(2) CrPC. The report has no paragraph numbers. Why it matters now: s.175(2) BNSS repeats s.156(2), and s.173(1) now says expressly what Satvinder Kaur reasoned towards. On a reading, it is the leading guide to what a station does after recording such information.

Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 (2013 INSC 748), 12 November 2013 (Constitution Bench of five judges; P. Sathasivam CJI, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde JJ.). The Court held that "Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation" (para 111(i)). A preliminary inquiry was allowed only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, in illustrative categories such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption and abnormal delay. It "should not exceed 7 days" (para 111(ii), (vi), (vii)). Why it matters now: s.173(1) keeps the mandatory structure. Section 173(3) departs from it for the three-to-seven-year band, allowing a fourteen-day enquiry into whether a prima facie case exists — see Imran Pratapgadhi.

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., [2015] 4 S.C.R. 108 (2015 INSC 239), 19 March 2015 (Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant JJ.). The Court held that s.156(3) applications "are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant", and that there must be prior applications under ss.154(1) and 154(3) before a s.156(3) petition (para 27). Why it matters now: s.175(3) BNSS writes both requirements into the statute. The Magistrate acts on "the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173".

Post-2024 — Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309 (2025 INSC 410), 28 March 2025 (Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan JJ.; opinion of Oka J.). The Court held that s.173(3) "makes a significant departure from Section 154 of the CrPC" and is "an exception to sub-Section (1) of Section 173". Within its band, the officer may enquire whether a prima facie case exists "even if the information received discloses commission of any cognizable offence" (para 23). Outside it, registration is mandatory if a cognizable offence is disclosed (para 25). The option was available but not exercised on the facts (para 28), and the FIR was quashed (para 44).

Post-2024 — XXX v. State of Kerala, 2026 INSC 88, 27 January 2026 (Dipankar Datta and Manmohan JJ.; opinion of Datta J.). The Court stated that a person aggrieved by non-registration "at the first instance, is required to approach the Superintendent of Police under sub-section (4) of Section 173", and that this "is a mandatory precondition to invoke the jurisdiction of the judicial magistrate" (para 31.1). It read s.175(4), which covers complaints against public servants arising in the course of official duty, as an extension of s.175(3) requiring a written complaint supported by an affidavit (paras 39, 42–44). The Division Bench order was upheld (para 58).

Which law applies to your case

The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024. Under s.531(2)(a) BNSS, any inquiry or investigation pending immediately before that date continues under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading, information recorded under s.154 CrPC before 1 July 2024 stays governed by the CrPC, while information given on or after that date is recorded under s.173 BNSS. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is a Zero FIR under the BNSS? "Zero FIR" is a descriptive term; it does not appear in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It refers to information of a cognizable offence recorded at a police station that does not have territorial jurisdiction over the place of the offence. The statutory basis is the phrase "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" in Section 173(1) BNSS, which had no counterpart in Section 154(1) CrPC.

Can a police station refuse to record an FIR because the offence happened elsewhere? Section 173(1) BNSS provides that information of a cognizable offence may be given to an officer in charge of a police station "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed", and oral information "shall be reduced to writing". On a reading of that text, the place of the offence is not a ground for declining to record the information. Under the CrPC, the Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur (1999) held that a police officer cannot refuse to record the FIR or investigate on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Must a Zero FIR be transferred within fifteen days? No such rule exists in the Sanhita. Section 173 BNSS sets out no procedure or time limit for transferring information to the police station having territorial jurisdiction, and the words "fifteen days" appear in the BNSS only in Sections 187, 346, 480 and 483, none of which concerns an FIR. If a transfer practice exists, it is not found in the Sanhita; no executive instruction on transfer was verified for this page.

Can an FIR be lodged electronically under the BNSS? Yes. Section 173(1) BNSS allows information of a cognizable offence to be given orally or by electronic communication. Information given by electronic communication "shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it", and its substance is entered in the book kept in the form prescribed by State rules. Section 2(1)(i) BNSS defines "electronic communication".

What is the preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS? For a cognizable offence "made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years", Section 173(3) BNSS allows the officer in charge, with prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, or to proceed with investigation. It is discretionary ("may"). In Imran Pratapgadhi (2025) the Supreme Court read it as an exception to Section 173(1) that applies even where the information discloses a cognizable offence.

What can I do if the police refuse to record my FIR? Section 173(4) BNSS lets the aggrieved person send the substance of the information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, failing which an application may be made to the Magistrate. Under Section 175(3) BNSS the Magistrate acts on an application supported by an affidavit made under Section 173(4). In XXX v. State of Kerala (2026) the Supreme Court stated that approaching the Superintendent of Police is a mandatory precondition to invoking the Magistrate.

Is it an offence for a police officer to refuse to record an FIR? For listed offences, yes. Section 199(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes a public servant who fails to record information given under Section 173(1) BNSS relating to offences under BNS sections 64 to 68, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 79, 124, 143 or 144, with rigorous imprisonment of six months to two years and fine. The BNSS First Schedule classifies it as cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.

Sources

Acts and sections read (primary text):

  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India, CG-DL-E-25122023-250884): ss.2(1)(i), 173, 175, 187, 346, 480, 483, 531(2); First Schedule entry for BNS s.199; commencement footnote to s.1 in the official text (S.O. 848(E), 23 February 2024).
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India, CG-DL-E-25122023-250883): ss.124, 199.
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (original-PDF text): ss.154, 156.
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (original-PDF text): s.166A.

Judgments read (Supreme Court, full text in the Veritect judgment corpus):

  • Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), [1999] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 348 — S_1999_3_348_358_EN.md
  • Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 — 2013_14_713_802_EN.md
  • Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., [2015] 4 S.C.R. 108 — 2015_4_108_136_EN.md
  • Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309 — 2025_3_1309_1349_EN.md
  • XXX v. State of Kerala, 2026 INSC 88 — Diary_8626-2025_Judgment.md

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Landmark cases referenced

  • • Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), [1999] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 348 (1999 INSC 455)
  • • Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 (2013 INSC 748)
  • • Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., [2015] 4 S.C.R. 108 (2015 INSC 239)

Post-2024 rulings under the new code

  • Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
    Supreme Court of India · 2025-03-28
    FIR quashed. The Court read Section 173(3) BNSS as an exception to Section 173(1) that permits a preliminary enquiry into whether a prima facie case exists even where the information discloses a cognizable offence, for offences punishable for three years or more but less than seven years (paras 23, 28); if no prima facie case is found, the informant should be informed immediately so that the Section 173(4) remedy can be availed (para 24). [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1309; 2025 INSC 410.
  • XXX v. State of Kerala
    Supreme Court of India · 2026-01-27
    Appeal disposed of; Division Bench order upheld. The Court stated that resort to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS is a mandatory precondition to invoking the Magistrate under Section 175(3) (para 31.1), and read Section 175(4) (complaints against public servants) as an extension of Section 175(3) requiring a written complaint supported by an affidavit (paras 39, 42-44). 2026 INSC 88.

Related sections

In the old code
  • • Section 154 CrPC — Information in cognizable cases
  • • Section 155 CrPC — Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases
  • • Section 156 CrPC — Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case
In the new code
  • • Section 173 BNSS — Information in cognizable cases
  • • Section 174 BNSS — Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases
  • • Section 175 BNSS — Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case
Statutory text verified against BNSS and BNS: Official Gazette texts CG-DL-E-25122023-250884 and -250883 (pdftotext), BNSS commencement footnote from the official BNSS text; CrPC and IPC: original-PDF texts; BNSS First Schedule table cross-checked against the Gazette schedule; all provisions re-read 2026-09-26
About Veritect

AI research & drafting, purpose-built for Indian litigation.

Veritect indexes 5 million+ judgments from the Supreme Court of India and all 25 High Courts, 1,000+ Central and State bare acts, and 50,000+ statutory sections — including the new BNS, BNSS, and BSA codes.

Built for Indian courts. Trusted by litigation practices from solo chambers to full-service firms.

Try Veritect free